XXXVI. ANAXIMENES (Jac慰by FGrHist. 72, Usener, Quaest. Anaxim. 6 sq., Blass II2 378 sq.) 1. Dion. Hal. Isaei I p. 122, 3 Us.-R.: 峒埼轿蔽疚刮嘉轿肺 未峤 蟿峤肝 螞伪渭蠄伪魏畏谓峤肝 峒愇 峒佅维蟽伪喂蟼 渭峤参 蟿伪峥栂 峒拔次蔽瓜 蟿峥段 位蠈纬蠅谓 蟿蔚蟿蟻维纬蠅谓蠈谓 蟿喂谓伪 蔚峒段轿蔽 尾慰蠀位蠈渭蔚谓慰谓 (魏伪峤 纬峤跋 峒毕兿勎肯佄毕 纬苇纬蟻伪蠁蔚 魏伪峤 蟺蔚蟻峤 蟿慰峥 蟺慰喂畏蟿慰峥 蟽蠀谓蟿维尉蔚喂蟼 魏伪蟿伪位苇位慰喂蟺蔚 魏伪峤 蟿苇蠂谓伪蟼 峒愇疚滴轿轿肯囄滴, 峒蟿伪喂 未峤 魏伪峤 蟽蠀渭尾慰蠀位蔚蠀蟿喂魏峥段 魏伪峤 未喂魏伪谓喂魏峥段 峒纬蠋谓蠅谓), 慰峤 渭苇谓蟿慰喂 蟿苇位蔚喂蠈谓 纬蔚 峒愇 慰峤愇次滴嘉贯痉 蟿慰蠉蟿蠅谓 蟿峥段 峒拔次滇慷谓 峒位位始 峒蟽胃蔚谓峥 魏伪峤 峒蟺委胃伪谓慰谓 峤勎较勎 峒愇 峒佅维蟽伪喂蟼 胃蔚蠅蟻峥段. Inter Isocratem et Alcidamanta positus 蟺伪蟻伪纬纬蔚位渭维蟿蠅谓 蟿蔚蠂谓喂魏峥段 蟽蠀纬纬蟻伪蠁蔚峤合 魏伪峤 峒纬蠅谓喂蟽蟿峤聪 位蠈纬蠅谓 峥ノ废勎肯佄刮横慷谓 a Dionysio nominatur ad Amm. 2, I p. 259, 3 sq. 峒埼轿蔽疚刮嘉轿废 aliique eiusdem aetatis 慰峤愇羔讲谓 慰峤斚勎 魏伪喂谓峤肝 慰峤斚勎 蟺蔚蟻喂蟿蔚峤肝 峒愊蔚蟿萎未蔚蠀蟽伪谓 sec. eundem de Dem. p. 143, 7 sq.
2. Paus. VI 18 (3) 5: 峒愊蔚蠁蠉魏蔚喂 渭峤参 伪峤愊勧礁蟼 蟽慰蠁喂蟽蟿峤聪 魏伪峤 蟽慰蠁喂蟽蟿峥段 位蠈纬慰蠀蟼 渭喂渭蔚峥栂兾肝蔽 (sc. 峒埼轿蔽疚刮嘉轿废)鈥 (6) 慰峤 渭峤次 慰峤愇瘁讲 蔚峒跋蔚峥栁 蟿喂蟼 伪峤愊勎肯兿囄滴次壪 峒埼轿蔽疚刮嘉轿肯呄 蟺蟻蠈蟿蔚蟻蠈蟼 峒愊兿勎刮 蔚峤懴佄肺合幭. Artis verba p. 85, 20 (38 p. 99, 9 H.) 蟽蠀谓蔚胃委味蔚喂谓 伪峤懴勎酷胶蟼 蟿慰蠉蟿慰喂蟼 峒呄伪蟽喂谓 峒愇 峒懴勎课嘉肯 蠂蟻峥喯兾肝蔽 confert Usener l. l. p. 21.
3. Philod. rhet. II p. 254, 20 S.: 峒位位鈥橾 峤呄勎蔽 未峤 位苇纬蠅蟽喂谓 峤ハ兿蔚蟻 峒埼轿蔽疚刮嘉轿废, 峤∠ 慰峤愇 峒勎 蟺慰蟿蔚 蟺蟻慰蟽峥囅兾蔽 蟿慰峥栂 峥ノ废勎肯佄刮何酷繓蟼 峒蟻纬蠉蟻喂慰谓 未喂未蠈谓蟿蔚蟼, 蔚峒 渭峤 蟿峤 未畏渭畏纬慰蟻蔚峥栁 魏伪峤 未喂魏慰位慰纬蔚峥栁 [峒愇 蟿峥哴蟼 蟿苇蠂谓畏蟼 伪峤愊勧慷谓 [蟺蔚蟻喂蔚]纬委谓蔚蟿慰 蟿蔚位蔚委蠅蟼, [峒谓伪]蟽蟿蟻苇蠁慰谓蟿伪喂 蟺伪蠂苇[蠅蟼]. Cf. Philod. I p. 31, 3: 蔚峒 渭峤 蟿苇蠂谓畏谓 渭[蔚胃蠋]未蔚蠀慰谓 峤[蟻胃峥断, 慰峤斚慰蟿鈥橾 峒偽 蟺慰位位慰峤 [蟺蟻慰]蟽峥囄迪兾蔽 伪峤怺蟿慰]峥朳蟼] 渭喂蟽胃慰峤合 未喂未蠈谓蟿蔚蟼.
4. Ibid. II p. 165, 22 S.: 位蔚委蟺蔚[蟿始] 慰峤栁 峒蟺蠈未蔚喂[尉喂蟼,] 未喂鈥 峒 峒埼轿蔽疚刮嘉轿废 [峒斚單毕僝魏蔚 [蟿峤 蟽蠀位]位蠈纬喂蟽渭伪... (28) 峤ハ兾甘 慰峤椣勎肯 渭[维位喂蟽蟿伪 未蠉谓]伪蟿伪喂 蟺蔚委胃蔚喂谓 [魏伪蟿维 纬蔚] 蟿慰峥ο勎课 峤 峥ノ勏壪, 慰峤 [峒斚兿勎 蟿峤?] 魏伪胃蠈位慰蠀.
5. Hypoth. Isocr. Hel.: 尾苇位蟿喂慰谓 未峤 位苇纬蔚喂谓, 峤ハ兿蔚蟻 峤 螠伪蠂维蠅谓, 峤呄勎 蟺蟻峤赶 峒埼轿蔽疚刮嘉轿肺 蟿峤肝 螞伪渭蠄伪魏畏谓峤肝 纬蟻维蠁蔚喂. 蠁苇蟻蔚蟿伪喂 未峤 峒愇何滴轿肯 位蠈纬慰蟼, 峒櫸晃轿废 峒蟺慰位慰纬委伪 渭峋段晃晃课 慰峤栂兾 峒は蔚蟻 峒愇澄合幬嘉刮课.
6. Philod. rhet. I p. 215, 1 S.: 蔚峒 渭苇谓蟿慰喂 纬蔚 蟿峥段 胃蔚峥段 魏伪峤 蟿峥段 峒∠佅幭壩 峒愇澄合幬嘉刮 未蠉谓伪蟽胃伪喂 蟺慰喂蔚峥栁 峒愊伪纬纬苇位位慰谓蟿伪喂, 蟿峥段 未始 峒谓胃蟻蠋蟺蠅谓 蟿慰峤合 渭峤参 蔚峤愇晃课澄滇繓谓, 蟿慰峤合 未峤 未蠀蟽蠁畏渭蔚峥栁 魏伪峤 蟿慰峤合 伪峤愊勎肯嵪, 峤呄勎蔽 蟺蟻[慰]苇位蠅谓蟿伪喂, 蟺慰喂蔚峥栁 峒懳何刐蔚]蟻慰谓, 峒渭]蔚峥栂 [蠁]萎蟽慰渭蔚谓, 蠂]蠅蟻峤断 蟿慰峥 魏伪峤 峒谓伪喂蟽胃萎蟿蠅谓 慰峤愊 慰峒肺课 峒位蠈纬蠅谓 味蠋蠅谓 伪峤愊勎酷胶蟼 峒愇澄合幬嘉刮 蟺蔚蟺[慰喂]畏魏苇谓伪喂, 未喂蠈蟿喂 胃蔚峥段 渭峤参 慰峤愇次滇蕉蟼 慰峤愇词 峒∠佅幭壩 峒愇澄合壩嘉肯 未蔚峥栂勎盵喂] 蟿慰峥 蟺伪蟻始 峒谓胃蟻蠋蟺蠅谓, 峒斚兿勎刮 蟿蔚 蟺峤拔 峒斘晃毕勏勎课 伪峤愊勧慷谓 魏伪峤 蟿峤 魏伪蟿伪蟿蔚蠀蠂胃苇谓, 峒蟺蟻蔚蟺苇蟽蟿伪蟿慰谓 未峤 蟿峤 纬蔚喂谓蠈渭蔚谓慰谓 峤懴峤 蟿峥段 蟽慰蠁喂蟽蟿峥段. 未喂峤 魏伪峤 位苇纬慰蠀蟽喂谓 峒埾佄瓜兿勎肯勎晃肺 峒 蟿喂谓伪 渭苇谓蟿慰喂 蟺蟻峤赶 峒埼轿蔽疚刮嘉轿肺 峒 蟿喂谓伪 未萎蟺慰蟿始 蔚峒跋蔚峥栁 蟿峥段 蟽慰蠁喂蟽蟿峥段 蔚峒聪勎 峒圼蟻]蟿苇渭喂未慰蟼 蔚峒聪勈 峒埼肝肺结径蟼 峒愇澄合幬嘉刮课 纬蟻维蠄伪谓蟿伪 魏伪峤 蟽蔚渭谓蠀谓蠈渭蔚谓慰谓路 慰峤愇 慰峒次滴 纬维蟻, 蔚峒跋[蔚峥朷谓, 峒愇 蟺慰蟿始 峒斚佄瓜 纬苇谓畏蟿伪喂 蟿峥段 胃蔚峥段 峤∠ 蟺蟻蠈[蟿]蔚蟻慰谓, 峒愊佄滇繓谓 蟿峤次 峒埾喯佄课次滴勎肺铰 魏伪位峤肝 纬峤跋 峒愇澄合幬嘉瓜屛 蟽慰蠀 魏伪峤 峤 未蔚峥栁轿 峒愊慰委畏蟽蔚谓;
7. Stob. Fl慰r. 螕始 XXXVIII 45 (III p. 718 H.): 蟿慰峥 伪峤愊勎酷喀 (i. e. 峒埼轿蔽疚刮嘉轿肯呄)螄 峤呄兾课 纬峤跋 蟿峤 魏伪位峥断 峥ノ肺肝较勎 峒 蟺蟻伪蠂胃苇谓蟿伪 未喂峤 蠁胃蠈谓慰谓 慰峤愇 峒愊伪喂谓慰峥ο兾, 蟺峥断 慰峤椣勎课 峒偽 蟿慰峥栂 峒斚佄澄课瓜 峤犗單滴晃兾滴刮蔽; Putes <蟿慰峥栂 位蠈纬慰喂蟼 峒> 蟿慰峥栂 峒斚佄澄课瓜. Ex aliquo encomio, ut videtur.
8. St慰b. Fl慰r. 螖始 L 91 (V p. 1055 H.): 峒埼轿蔽疚刮嘉轿肯呄偮 蟿慰峥栂 纬峤跋 峒蟽蟿蔚委慰喂蟼 蟺蟻蔚蟽尾蠉蟿伪喂蟼, 峤呄兾课 伪峒 魏伪蟿峤 蟿峤 蟽峥段嘉 峒∥次课轿贬蕉 峒蟺慰渭伪蟻伪委谓慰谓蟿伪喂, 蟿慰蟽慰峥ο勎课 伪峒 蟺蔚蟻峤 蟿慰峤合 位蠈纬慰蠀蟼 峒愊喂胃蠀渭委伪喂 蟺维位喂谓 伪峤斘疚课较勎蔽, 魏伪峤 蟿慰蟽慰蠉蟿峥 尾蔚尾伪喂蠈蟿蔚蟻慰谓 伪峤愊勎酷繓蟼 蟺伪蟻苇蠂蔚喂 蟿峤 位苇纬蔚喂谓 蟿喂 蠂蟻萎蟽喂渭慰谓 5 蟿慰峥栂 峒勎晃晃课瓜 魏伪峤 蟺伪蟻始 峒懴勎佅壩 伪峤愊勎酷胶蟼 峒魏慰蠉蔚喂谓路 峤ハ兿勎 蟿峤跋 渭峤参 峒蟺峤 蟿峥段 尾蟻蠅蟿峥段 魏伪峤 蟺慰蟿峥段 魏伪峤 峒蠁蟻慰未喂蟽委蠅谓 峒∥次课结桨蟼 纬喂谓慰渭苇谓伪蟼 峒拔次滇繓谓 峒斚兿勎刮 慰峤愊 慰峤曄勏壪 蔚峒跋 蟿峤 蟺伪蟻伪蠂蟻峥單嘉 蔚峤愊喯佄蔽刮轿肯嵪兾毕 峤∠ 峤曄兿勎迪佄课 位蠀蟺慰蠉蟽伪蟼路 峒 未峤 蟺蔚蟻峤 蟿慰峤合 位蠈纬慰蠀蟼 峒∥次课结酱 魏伪峤 渭维胃畏蟽喂蟼 峒斘 蟿蔚 蟿峥 蟺伪蟻伪蠀蟿委魏伪 蔚峤愊喯佄蔽轿滴 魏伪峤 蟺蟻峤赶 蟿峤肝 峒勎晃晃课 尾委慰谓 蟿慰峤合 渭伪谓胃维谓慰谓蟿伪蟼 峒∥次壪 10 蟺伪蟻伪蟽魏蔚蠀维蔚喂. 4 蟺伪蟻苇蠂蔚喂 sc. 蟿峤 纬峥喯佄毕 5 伪峤愊勎酷繓蟼 M 6 alterum 魏伪峤 om. A 9 未喂维纬蔚喂谓 峒∥次壪 MA Cf. Plato rei p. 328 D, Aristot. rhet. 1389 b 13 sq. 9. Quint. inst. 3, 4, 9: Anaximenes iudicialem et contionalem generalis partes esse voluit, septem autem species: hortandi, dehortandi, laudandi, vituperandi, accusandi, defendendi, exquirendi, quod 峒愇疚迪勎毕兿勎刮合屛 dicit: quarum duae primae deliberativi, duae sequentes demonstrativi, tres ultimae iudicialis generis sunt partes. Hoc testimonio usus primus P. Victorius rhetoricam ad Alexandrum, vulgo Aristoteli tributam, Anaximenis esse coniecit.
|
XXXVI. Anaximenes
1. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, On Isaeus p. 122.3: [Isaeus] observed that Anaximenes of Lampsacus, while he wanted to be accomplished in every form of composition (for he wrote history, left behind treatises on Homer, published on rhetorical theory and also participated in political and forensic debates), he nevertheless became fulfilled in none of these forms, but was weak and unconvincing in all of them. Dion. Hal. To Ammonius 2.1 p. 259, 3 f. names a 鈥榳riter of teaching treatises and competitor in rhetorical speeches鈥 inserted between Isocrates and Alcidamas. The same author On Demosthenes p. 143, 7 f. reports that 鈥楢naximenes鈥 and others among his contemporaries 鈥榙id not practice anything new or outstanding鈥.
2. Pausanias 6.18.(3)6: He had a natural aptitude for rhetoric and for imitating the style of rhetoricians. [鈥 Moreover, Anaximenes was the first to compose extemporary speeches. Usener ibid. p. 21 compares the words of the treatise p. 85.20 (38 p. 99.9 H.): 鈥榯hey accustomed themselves to making use of all these things on the spot.鈥
3. Philodemus, On Rhetoric p. 254.20: But when they make the same claim as Anaximenes, that people did not use to approach orators offering money unless their speaking in public or in court came out perfectly due to their art, they are grossly mistaken.
4. Ibid. p. 165.22: There remains only the exposition, though which Anaximenes claimed happens the summary [鈥 so that, according to this author, that orator can persuade best who masters the whole.
5. Hypothesis to Isocrates鈥 Helena: It is more accurate to say, as does Machaon, that [Isocrates] is writing in rivalry against Anaximenes of Lampsacus. A speech by the latter is known that is a defense of Helena rather than a praise. 6. Philodemus, Rhetoric p. 215.1: If they proclaim that they are able to write praises of gods and heroes and, as far as humans are concerned, to praise some and denigrate others and that they can do either thing to the same people when they so desire, we shall say the following (apart from the fact that they wrote praises, not just for brute animals, but for inanimate objects): None of the gods or heroes needs to be praised by a human, and even all of what hits the mark is less than they are; so what the sophists have done is totally inappropriate. This is why Aristotle, or whoever that was, is said to have said to Anaximenes, or whoever else that was, who had written a praise of either Artemis or Athena and took great pride in it: 鈥淒on鈥檛 you know that, should there arise a strife among gods as in the past, Aphrodite will say: 鈥楴ice praise of yours that gut wrote!鈥欌
7. Stobaeus, Anthology: From the same author [Anaximenes]: 鈥淎ll those who do not praise good words or actions out of envy 鈥 how would these people be useful through actions? You would expect 鈥榯hrough <words or> actions.鈥 Apparently these words stem from some encomium.
8. Ibid.: From Anaximenes: 鈥淭he more the bodily pleasures of cultivated old people vanish, the stronger their desires relating to speech grow again and the more likely [1] [their age] makes it for them to say something of use to others and to have such things said to them by others. So the pleasures coming from eating and drinking and sexual lust can be seen not so much to make one happy in the present moment as to cause pain afterwards; the pleasure relate to the art of speaking and the learning of it both cause joy in the present and make those who learn it happy for the rest of their life.鈥
9. Quintilian 3.4.9: Anaximenes claimed that the judicial and the deliberative were general parts, and the kinds were seven: exhortation, dissuasion, praise, blame, accusation, defense, inquiry, which he calls exetastikon. The first two are parts of the deliberative genre, the following two of the demonstrative, the last three of the judicial. Based on this testimony, P. Victorius surmised for the first time that Anaximenes was the author of the Rhetoric to Alexander, which was generally attributed to Aristotle. |
[1] Literally: stable, reliable.